The Left is in Tizzy Over the Supreme Court Ruling on the Voting Rights Act

RUSH: the Supreme Court rule today that states can no longer be judged by voting discrimination that went on decades ago. This is a decision that marks the end of a major civil rights-era reform, the Voting Rights Act. A 5-4 ruling, and it rewrites a key element of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which for 50 years has given the federal government unprecedented say in everything, from how states draw their congressional maps, to where they place polling locations. It was all rooted in the belief that southern states were highly discriminatory against blacks, not letting them vote, not letting them register, so the states were totally subservient to the federal government when it came to voting.

The federal government, under this act, had the right to tell the states everything: how they were gonna draw their districting maps, how they were gonna run elections and all that. And the Supreme Court today just threw that out, saying it's no longer applicable. I think if anybody should be punished for voting rights violations today, it should be the Democrat Party. The Democrats created the Ku Klux Klan to keep blacks from voting Republican. When that didn't work, they created and enforced the Jim Crow laws to make it hard for 'em to vote Republican. It's the Democrat Party and agents of influence like the New Black Panthers which now terrorize voters in black districts. How about the fact that Romney, in 59 Philadelphia voting districts, didn't get one vote? Romney did not get one vote. Zero, folks, zero votes in 59 districts.Now, if there are voting violations taking place today, it's the Democrat Party. Anyway, this thing has been thrown out now, and the left is in a tizzy. It's good news for the states who redistricted when the GOP took over, and are being sued for doing so now. A pull quote from the Washington Times story: "Beneath the legal ruling is a broader social statement, with the justices saying that a state cannot be perpetually held responsible for past discrimination if there's no evidence that it still exists." I mean, this cuts right to the core of affirmative action.

When affirmative action was established, it was to make amends for past transgressions. So what it basically was, we were setting up new discrimination to deal with old discrimination, and we were calling that a remedy. But then people like me said, "Okay, well, when does this new discrimination end?" and the civil rights people said, "Never. Affirmative action's the law of the land, and it's part of the fabric and it's never gonna end."

Well, wait a minute. You're now punishing people who didn't do anything. Affirmative action is punishing people who did not and have not discriminated against anybody in their lives. Doesn't matter. It was so bad back then, it was so bad that you're gonna be making amends for what you did for the rest of this country's life. Well, the Supreme Court, when it comes to the Voting Rights Act, just said, "Nah, ah, ah, ah, a state cannot be perpetually held responsible for past discrimination if there's no evidence it still exists," which ought to be the guiding principle of affirmative action.

It ought to be the case that a business or an individual cannot be perpetually held responsible for past discrimination if there's no evidence it's happening now. If there's no evidence that it still exists. We go to the audio sound bites. Jonathan Turley on CNN's Newsroom today, Jake Tapper spoke with him, said, "The 1965 Voting Rights Act was renewed for 25 years in 2006. It was an overwhelming vote by a very divided Congress. The vote 390 to 33 in the House, 98 to nothing in the Senate. What's interesting is even though there was an overwhelming vote in favor of continuing the Voting Rights Act, Chief Justice John Roberts made no secret about his skepticism that it was still required." Turley said this.

TURLEY: This is very much a long-term project for Chief Justice Roberts. He stated years ago that he was highly critical of Section 5 particularly, taking out Section 4 effectively takes Section 5 off line, but Roberts has been gunning for this for some time. During the oral argument, both Roberts and Scalia chided Congress and basically said no member of Congress has the guts to vote against a bill like this, because you don't want to be viewed as favoring racism or interfering with the rights of minorities. And so what you have here is a clear rejection of Congress and frankly a degree of contempt for Congress that came out of the oral argument.

RUSH: Well, okay, you could put it that way, degree of contempt for Congress because it was renewed. This portion of the Voting Rights Act was renewed for 25 years, seven years ago. And it was overwhelming, 390 to 33 in the House, 98 to nothing in the Senate. It was clear. And those two votes are highly illustrative of attitudes everywhere. Regardless what the right thing to do was, nobody had the courage to because they were afraid of being called racists. This provision had no business being renewed for 25 years. You know, the past discrimination has long ago been dealt with. The civil rights community wants perpetual discrimination, reverse discrimination, if you will, to continue for political reasons.

This isn't about making amends anymore. It's about two things. It's about advancing liberalism, of course. But it's also about keeping the black population constantly roiled and angry and told that they're being discriminated against. And that their voting is being denied and their voting rights are being denied and that the Republicans have designs on never having them vote again. It's all part of that. Getting-even-with-'em-ism. Another Rushism, get-even-with-'em-ism, is what is propelling this. But there's no reason for it. There's no reason for affirmative action anymore. Affirmative action was illegitimate in the first place. Simply replaced one discrimination with another, sort of like, "Here's how it feels. We're gonna make you go through what you put us through."

The problem was, the reverse discrimination was being applied to people who had not engaged in it. And that's all the court said. Turley is right. The justices basically called out Congress today as a bunch of cowards. You know, you guys, you didn't have the courage to right things, so we're gonna do it for you, and we're just gonna invalidate this portion of the Voting Rights Act because it's no longer constitutional. It's not legal to continue discriminating against people who didn't engage in it in the first place. It would be great if this whole line of thinking were applied throughout our culture and society when it comes to affirmative action, racial discrimination and all that.